This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Originally Posted by Ockham

I just read that and while very interesting --- SG's and DOJ lawyers may have argued that during those specific cases, no President has come out and declared it though, not like this. Holder read the letter from the President where he stated:

I'm sorry but that's not for him to decide. You may argue that this is clear exception due as the law infringes on Executive powers but I don't see how it does. To be fair, I don't see the need to circumvent the process by simply declaring "I don't agree" and ignore it in any of the cases... this is a backdoor veto without having to step up and put pen to paper. So my "hyperbolic" rhetoric stands... what's unconstitutional is this type of action no matter who does it. That the President is violating his own Article II vow for what... political gain to get more votes during the upcoming election in 2012? Not surprising...

Specifically which part of oath does this violate?

He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear

Re: Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Originally Posted by Ockham

I just read that and while very interesting --- SG's and DOJ lawyers may have argued that during those specific cases, no President has come out and declared it though, not like this. Holder read the letter from the President where he stated:

I'm sorry but that's not for him to decide. You may argue that this is clear exception due as the law infringes on Executive powers but I don't see how it does. To be fair, I don't see the need to circumvent the process by simply declaring "I don't agree" and ignore it in any of the cases... this is a backdoor veto without having to step up and put pen to paper. So my "hyperbolic" rhetoric stands... what's unconstitutional is this type of action no matter who does it. That the President is violating his own Article II vow for what... political gain to get more votes during the upcoming election in 2012? Not surprising...

So you are saying that when the AG decides not to defend a ruling(Hint: AG works for the president and is directly responsible to the president), it is unconstitutional, even though it has been done for many years?

We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham
I’ve always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals. - Lindsey Graham

Re: Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Originally Posted by Deuce

Specifically which part of oath does this violate?

Constitution: Aritlce II, Section III

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The article linked identified it before. Here's the thing - in previous uses, it was the SG's or the DoJ lawyers who had issues. This is the first time that I know of a sitting President specifically declares a law unconstitutional, and sends his USAG to read a his statement of that declaration.

Re: Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Originally Posted by Redress

So you are saying that when the AG decides not to defend a ruling(Hint: AG works for the president and is directly responsible to the president), it is unconstitutional, even though it has been done for many years?

I'm saying a President's executive powers of the Constitution does not give him the power to declare anything unconstitutional. And it wasn't the AG, the AG read a 5 page letter which I quoted already.

Re: Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Originally Posted by Ockham

I'm saying a President's executive powers of the Constitution does not give him the power to declare anything unconstitutional. And it wasn't the AG, the AG read a 5 page letter which I quoted already.

He is not declaring the law unconstitutional. He is instructing his AG to not defend it from such a challenge.

The AG works for the president. The president is responsible for what the AG does, and that goes both ways.

We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham
I’ve always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals. - Lindsey Graham

Re: Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

He is not declaring the law unconstitutional. He is instructing his AG to not defend it from such a challenge.

The AG works for the president. The president is responsible for what the AG does, and that goes both ways.

Originally Posted by Statement

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Re: Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Which means what? In the opinion of the president, the ruling will fail at higher levels of courts just as it has in lower(read the mass ruling, it was a work of art and designed to appeal to both liberal and conservative judges) and so he has instructed the AG(which he is allowed to do) to not defend the law in court. This is what has been said all along, and not only is it legal, there is a procedure to follow for doing this.

We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham
I’ve always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals. - Lindsey Graham

Re: Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Originally Posted by Redress

Which means what? In the opinion of the president, the ruling will fail at higher levels of courts just as it has in lower(read the mass ruling, it was a work of art and designed to appeal to both liberal and conservative judges) and so he has instructed the AG(which he is allowed to do) to not defend the law in court. This is what has been said all along, and not only is it legal, there is a procedure to follow for doing this.

It means the President has declared a law voted on and passed by Congress, signed into law by Clinton, unconstitutional. He does not have that power.

There's more:

Furthermore, pursuant to the President ’ s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.

Therefore, upon President Obama's decision, action will be taken as a result.

Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.

No where in the Constitution does the President have the power to do this - not just this President, any President. To use a hypothetical, let's say in 2012 Obama loses to a Republican and that Republican decides that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional and will not defend it in the courts. That could be messy and as much as I'd like Roe v. Wade overturned, this is not the way to do it.

I see where SG's and AG's have decided this but I have yet to see a President decide this --- you may say the AG works for the President so by default the President decides - but this President outright declares it -- himself. He's not the King, this power doesn't exist. And before you say, "But it was done 13 times since 2004", then the law was broken 13 times since 2004.

Re: Obama Administration Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

It means the President has declared a law voted on and passed by Congress, signed into law by Clinton, unconstitutional. He does not have that power.

No it does not mean that. It means that the AG will not defend the law in court, which is entirely different.

There's more:

Therefore, upon President Obama's decision, action will be taken as a result.

Action of notifying courts of the decision of the executive, which the courts are not bound to heed.

No where in the Constitution does the President have the power to do this - not just this President, any President. To use a hypothetical, let's say in 2012 Obama loses to a Republican and that Republican decides that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional and will not defend it in the courts. That could be messy and as much as I'd like Roe v. Wade overturned, this is not the way to do it.

I see where SG's and AG's have decided this but I have yet to see a President decide this --- you may say the AG works for the President so by default the President decides - but this President outright declares it -- himself. He's not the King, this power doesn't exist. And before you say, "But it was done 13 times since 2004", then the law was broken 13 times since 2004.

SG's and AG's work for the president. The only difference is that the president was directly involved in the discussion, but the exact same level of responsibility existed in both this case and the ones that happened under Bush.

We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham
I’ve always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals. - Lindsey Graham